Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses a key behavioral trait: 'the hidden solution stays on the server,' which prevents an agent from expecting the answer. It also mentions the return (surface story), but does not elaborate on session state or potential edge cases like no matching puzzle.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then lists the filters succinctly. No redundant wording or filler; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and the available filters. It does not specify behavior when filters match nothing, but this is a minor gap for a game session starter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for region, keyword, and difficulty. The description adds only a light grouping as 'Optional filters,' which is a minor semantic addition. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Start a new Turtle Soup (lateral thinking puzzle) session.' The verb 'start' and resource 'session' are specific. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it returns the surface story, which ask_question and give_up_and_reveal would not do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the entry point for a puzzle session, especially given the sibling names. It clearly states what it does (returns surface story) and the optional filters, providing enough context for an agent to know when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.